A U.S. court says the government must give bond hearings to some migrants. These people must have been in jail for more than 90 days.

美國一家法院表示，政府必須為部分移民提供保釋聆訊。這些人必須是被拘留超過90天。

Three people from Mexico and Honduras went to court. They lived in the U.S. for a long time. They have children who are U.S. citizens. They have no criminal records.

三名來自墨西哥與宏都拉斯的人前往法院。他們在美國居住了很長時間。他們有美國公民身分的子女。他們沒有刑事紀錄。

The court says the government can hold people for 90 days. But after 90 days, a judge must look at the person. The judge decides if the person is dangerous or if they will run away.

法院表示政府可以將人拘留90天。但在90天之後，法官必須審視該名人士。法官將決定該人是否危險或是否會潛逃。

Some judges disagree. One judge says the government should have more power. Other officials want to put more people in jail. In June, the government arrested 10,000 people in five days.

部分法官並不認同。一名法官表示政府應擁有更多權力。其他官員則希望將更多人投入監獄。在6月，政府在5天內逮捕了10,000人。

The court says 90 days is the limit. Now, the government must have hearings, but the government is still unhappy.

法院表示90天是期限。現在政府必須舉行聆訊，但政府仍然不滿。

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) must provide bond hearings for certain migrants who have been detained for more than 90 days.

美國第五巡迴上訴法院裁定，移民及海關執法局 (ICE) 必須為某些被拘留超過 90 天的移民提供保釋聆訊。

The court's decision focuses on the balance between immigration laws and the right to due process under the Fifth Amendment. The case began when three non-citizens—two from Mexico and one from Honduras—filed petitions for their release. These individuals had lived in the U.S. for a long time, had no criminal records, and had children who are U.S. citizens. Judge Leslie Southwick wrote that people with strong ties to the U.S. deserve legal protection, regardless of how they first entered the country. Consequently, while the government can detain people for an initial 90 days, any further detention requires a hearing to decide if the person is a flight risk or a danger to the community.

法院的決定集中在移民法與第五修正案下的正當程序權利之間的平衡。此案始於三名非公民（兩名來自墨西哥，一名來自洪都拉斯）申請釋放。這些人已在美國居住很長時間，沒有刑事紀錄，且擁有美國公民身份的子女。法官 Leslie Southwick 寫道，與美國有深厚聯繫的人，無論最初是如何進入美國，都應享有法律保障。因此，雖然政府可以在最初的 90 天內拘留人員，但任何 further 的拘留都需要進行聆訊，以決定該人是否存在潛在逃亡風險或對社區構成危險。

This ruling comes during a disagreement over how to classify non-citizens. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) recently expanded its definition of 'applicants for admission' to include people already living in the U.S. to justify keeping them in detention. Although another court panel supported this view in February, the current ruling addresses whether it is legal to hold people indefinitely without a judge's review. The court voted 2-1 on the decision. Judge James Graves agreed with the result but argued that hearings should happen within 30 days. However, Judge Cory Wilson disagreed, asserting that the ruling interferes with the power of Congress to manage immigration.

此項裁決是在爭論如何定義非公民之際做出的。國土安全部 (DHS) 最近擴大了「入境申請人」的定義，將已在美國居住的人員納入其中，以證明將其拘留是合理的。雖然另一個法院小組在二月支持此觀點，但目前的裁決旨在探討在沒有法官審核的情況下無限期拘留人員是否合法。法院以 2 比 1 投票通過此決定。法官 James Graves 同意結果，但主張聆訊應在 30 天內舉行。然而，法官 Cory Wilson 表示反對，認為該裁決干涉了國會管理移民的權力。

At the same time, the government has increased its enforcement efforts, including about 10,000 arrests over five days in June. Furthermore, the administration has asked the Supreme Court to resolve the larger dispute regarding whether mandatory detention is legal for residents who entered the country without official inspection.

與此同時，政府加強了執法力度，包括在六月的五天內逮捕了約 10,000 人。此外，行政部門已要求最高法院解決一個更大的爭議，即對於未經正式檢查而進入美國的居民，強制拘留是否合法。

The court has set a 90-day limit on detention without a bond hearing, although the administration still challenges this requirement.

法院對沒有保釋聆訊的拘留設定了 90 天期限，儘管行政部門仍對此要求提出挑戰。

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) must provide bond hearings for certain migrants detained beyond a 90-day threshold.

美國第五巡迴上訴法院裁定，移民與海關執法局 (ICE) 必須為部分被拘留超過 90 日的移民提供保釋聆訊。

The judicial determination centers on the intersection of statutory immigration authority and Fifth Amendment due process protections. The litigation originated from habeas corpus petitions filed by three non-citizens—two Mexican and one Honduran nationals—who possessed long-term residency in the United States, lacked criminal records, and had children with U.S. citizenship. The court's majority opinion, authored by Judge Leslie Southwick, posits that constitutional due process extends to individuals who have established significant domestic ties, regardless of the legality of their initial entry. Consequently, while the government maintains the authority to detain individuals under Section 1225(b)(2)(A) for an initial 90-day period, any extension of detention necessitates an individualized hearing to evaluate flight risks or threats to community safety.

此次司法裁決的核心在於法定移民權限與第五修正案正當法律程序保障的交集。該訴訟源於三名非公民（兩名墨西哥國民及一名洪都拉斯國民）提交的人身保護令申請，他們在美國擁有長期居留權，且無犯罪記錄，並育有美國公民身份的子女。由 Leslie Southwick 法官撰寫的多數意見書認為，無論最初入境是否合法，只要個人已建立深厚的國內聯繫，憲法正當法律程序的保障即適用於其身。因此，儘管政府根據第 1225(b)(2)(A) 條擁有將個人初步拘留 90 日的權限，但任何延期拘留都必須經過個別聆訊，以評估逃跑風險或對社區安全的威脅。

This ruling emerges amidst a broader institutional conflict regarding the classification of non-citizens. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) recently expanded its interpretation of 'applicants for admission' to include non-citizens already residing within the U.S., thereby justifying mandatory detention. Although a separate 5th Circuit panel previously upheld this interpretation in February, the current ruling addresses the distinct constitutional question of whether indefinite detention without judicial review is permissible. The decision was reached via a 2-1 vote; Judge James Graves concurred with the outcome but advocated for a more stringent 30-day hearing window. Conversely, Judge Cory Wilson dissented, asserting that the ruling infringes upon the plenary authority granted to Congress over immigration matters and risks destabilizing immigration dockets.

此裁決出現在關於非公民分類更廣泛的體制衝突之中。美國國土安全部 (DHS) 最近擴大了對「入境申請人」的解釋，將已居住在美國境內的非公民亦納入其中，以此證明強制拘留的合理性。儘管第五巡迴法院另一個小組於二月維持了此解釋，但本次裁決處理的是一個截然不同的憲法問題，即在缺乏司法審查的情況下，無限期拘留是否被允許。該決定是以 2 比 1 的投票結果達成；James Graves 法官同意結果，但主張應採取更嚴格的 30 日聆訊窗口。相反，Cory Wilson 法官持反對意見，認為此裁決侵犯了國會在移民事務上被賦予的全權權限，並可能導致移民案件名單陷入混亂。

Parallel to these legal developments, the administration has intensified enforcement operations, characterized by approximately 10,000 arrests over a five-day interval in June. The administration has sought recourse from the Supreme Court to resolve the overarching dispute regarding the legality of mandatory detention for residents who entered without inspection.

與這些法律進展平行的是，政府加強了執法行動，在六月的五天時間內拘捕了約 10,000 人。政府已尋求最高法院的救濟，以解決關於未經查驗入境之居民強制拘留合法性的整體爭議。

The court has established a 90-day limit on detention without a bond hearing, though the administration continues to contest the legality of this requirement.

法院已確立在沒有保釋聆訊的情況下，拘留期限上限為 90 日，儘管政府仍持續質疑此要求的合法性。